Subject to Change

A wannabe Canadian explains why we ought to curb our devotion to Her Majesty
Photograph by Christopher WahlQueen Elizabeth II, on a Royal visit to Winnipeg in 2002
According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, around 170,000 people become naturalized Canadians each year. All new citizens over the age of fourteen are required to take an oath to Queen Elizabeth II that goes like this:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

I suspect that the decision to specify an age limit was a calculated one: most tweens would possess enough unbridled curiosity to ask why they’re solemnly swearing allegiance to a woman who only occasionally deigns to visit the country their families have striven to become citizens of. It’s a good question that has recently taken on a greater pertinence for me personally.

I’ve been looking forward to becoming a Canadian citizen since I attained landed immigrant status almost three years ago. As a Britisher born and raised not fifty kilometres from Buckingham Palace, I’d always regarded the monarchy as a manageable embarrassment, though as a child I took some misplaced pride in the fact that our Queen remained the head of state for so many millions of people in such far-flung and exotic places. Places like Canada.

I left England at twenty-one years of age, and soon after became casually contemptuous of Her Majesty and her whole gang, for reasons I’ll touch upon in a moment. Since learning that becoming a Canadian citizen means swearing an oath and reaffirming the royals’ nominal ownership of my person, my inert republican leanings have been given a renewed focus and vigour. In short, I’m urging you to get rid of them. It’s okay, I can say that; I’m British.

The Queen’s EnglishA comedy writer prepares a script for Queen Elizabeth IIIllustration by Peter RyanPeter RyanLuciano Casimiri is a founding member of Kids in the Hall and a former writer for the comedy programs This Hour Has 22 Minutes and Royal Canadian Air Farce. But he received a serious opportunity in 2002, when he was invited to script Queen Elizabeth’s visit to the CBC building, to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the network’s first televised broadcast. It was a big job: “Every step along the way had to be scripted,” says Casimiri. “It’s to make the most of her time. I had to write everyone’s dialogue, and then I had to pass everything along to the Queen’s secretary in Canada, and he gave notes. And there were tons of notes.” Over three weeks, Casimiri wrote and rewrote banter for the forty people involved in the ten-minute visit, managing to sneak in a royal handshake for himself (“I wasn’t in trouble or anything. This was pre-terrorism”). It was not his last brush with royalty; this year, he helped produce sketches for television in honour of William and Kate’s wedding. They star another KITH alum, Scott Thompson, reprising his notorious impression of Her Majesty.

— Chris Berube
Now, I realize that it’s awkward to call out Canadians for their monarchical fidelity, given that this country came into its own as a giant refugee camp for Loyalists fleeing the rebelling thirteen colonies. It’s worth pointing out, however, that the king these proto-Canadians uprooted their lives for bore the justly earned epithet “Mad.” And therein lies my biggest objection to the content of this servile-sounding pledge: newcomers are being forced to bear allegiance not just to the sitting sovereign, but also to any unimpeachable nincompoop who happens to be squeezed out of an aristocratic birth canal and into the line of succession.

I’ll concede that man of the hour William Windsor has not yet shown himself to be an utter twit, and his bride — in the pantheon of recent royal consorts — seems nice enough, and certainly not difficult to look at. Their combined toothsomeness may well breathe some new life into this decrepit dynasty. But betwixt now and the eventual reign of the quasi-relatable King William V lies his cantankerous, backward-looking, and malformed father, the future Charles iii, whose 2009 visit to Canada was met with barely contained indifference. Imagine being forced to swear allegiance to this obsolete, bat-eared, scrotum-jowled old misanthrope, a man who talks to plants, proselytizes the use of bogus alternative “medicines,” demonstrates a contempt for modernity, and was famously recorded stating his wish to be one of Camilla Parker Bowles’s tampons.

Charles is just one example of what can happen when regents are bred like show dogs. This quirky hereditary system is a lottery, and it reliably turns up all kinds of miscreants: Nazi sympathizers (Edward viii), traitors (Charles I), murderers (Richard iii), the mentally ill (George iii), wife decapitators (Henry viii), and nitwits (most of the rest). I find it outrageous that Canada has yet to shrug off this last vestige of colonialism, outsourcing the appointment of a head of state to a cabal of distasteful foreign aristocrats. Contrast this devil-may-care-attitude with how conscientiously you people select a national hockey team.

By hook or by crook, the House of Windsor will eventually be relieved of its duty to sire heads of state. Australian prime minister Julia Gillard has already suggested that the death of Queen Elizabeth II should herald the birth of an Australian republic. Once this happens, it’s hard to imagine other nations won’t follow suit and politely dispense with the Windsors. This is spirit-lifting stuff, though it’s slightly ignoble that our long-overdue self-governance has to wait until an old lady croaks.

The work of disentangling the monarchy from Canadian institutions, then, must begin post haste. A good way to start would be to give new Canadians the option to pledge allegiance to Canada itself. Something’s amiss when the oath fails to fill hearts with true patriot love the way a domestic beer commercial so reliably can.

The best alternative I’ve seen was commissioned by Sergio Marchi, then minister of citizenship and immigration, in 1994:
I am a citizen of Canada, and I make this commitment: to uphold our laws and freedoms; to respect our people in their diversity; to work for our common well-being; and to safeguard and honour this ancient Northern land.

There. Doesn’t that feel better?

11 comment(s)

AlanApril 12, 2011 16:19 EST

Although the Walrus commissioned this piece, the Editor should have realized this was drivel when he saw the finished product. Dressed up as a piece on the Oath, this is just another vituperative attack based on personality, when what we could use is a reasoned discussion of the need, if any, to alter our Parliamentary system of government. I fail to see how the size of Charles' ears or his cantankerousness (do we assume the author actually experienced it herself?) or his like/dislike of certain types of architecture makes him or any other CEO/manager unqualified.
If she moved to Canada thinking she was landing in a Republic, she missed the mark by one border. She might as well have added that anyone who adheres to foreign religion such as Roman Catholics or Mormons are unqualified to play any role in our system of government. Dare I suggest most of our hockey players aren't Canadians either? I don't feel the least bit like a colonial and have nothing to 'throw off'. I am proudly Canadian, and proud of our system of government which I will defend vigorously compared to that system in the USA and even to that of the UK from which we sprang but also from which we differ in our own Canadian way.

SpencerApril 12, 2011 18:53 EST

Having a non-partisan head of state is a great thing that is undervalued by most Canadians. And, maybe, rightly so considering the Queen rarely visits the country (interestingly, when she does visit, the same people who complain that she doesn't visit enough, complain about how much the visit is costing) and preforms her constitutional duties even less often.

But a republic is not the answer. As most Canadian would agree, that non-partisan label looses some of it's legitimacy when the non-partisan figure is, in reality, chosen by a partisan politician. And, yet, many republicans sugest that creating a Canadian republic is as simple as cutting ties with Windsers and renaming the GG the President. Not only would this not be as easy to do as people like to think it would only serve to threaten our democracy, for, as much as I personally respect our current Governer General David Johnston, the GG has been acused of being no more than a yes-man for years and I can imagiane that this acusation would be a even more approperate description were the "big boss" removed from the picture. The logical answer then, you would think, would be to have an elected president but considering millions of Canadians can't even be bothered to vote in our federal elections, I don't think many would be thrilled with even more elections, more often. Not only that it's hard to stay non-partisan when you have to campiagn to get into office.

Sir John A. Macdonald perhaps said it best:

"By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practise of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle—the sovereign whom you respect and love."

No, the answer is not an end to the monarchy, the answer is an end to the position of governer general. The only reason we still have this relic of the colonal past is because we have a sovereign who, unfourtanetly, is the Queen of 16 other states. Unlike many other counties in the world, Canada did not gain indepandance by revolution, revolt, or even referendum. Instead, over a number of years, we have "matured" into a fully independent nation starting with Conferation in 1867, continuing in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster, and 1982 with the patriation of our constitution. The patriation of our monarchy is just the next step in this process. It's been talked about for years by many people including Queen Victoria - the idea of the Candian Royal Family spliting from the British and one day having a seperate monarch from Britain.

To me, constitutional monarchy is the most stable form of governemt. The only thing holding it back from the ideal that Macdonald spoke about is the where our sovereign lives. And we can change that.

And the reason we swear a oath to the head of state rather than the state is because that's up to interpretation. My idea of what's right for Canada is different than yours. In a country where one swears to the state, a person could justify acts against the government as upholding their oath because there doing it "for the country". With our oath there's no grey area. And notice that the oath mentions "Her Heirs and Successors". This includes the would-be future president of Canada if the Canadian people decide they want a republic.

MikeApril 13, 2011 17:52 EST

Alan: You're right that the size of Charles' ears should not necessarily disqualify him as a 'CEO/manager' candidate. A bit unfair. But how can you live with the fact that the cause of his physical oddness - his genetic cocktail - is the sole thing that qualifies him as candidate for CEO (and the only candidate on the planet as long as he's breathing, at that)?

Ruling out unattractive candidates based on ear-size is frankly far less arbitrary.

AnonymousApril 13, 2011 22:59 EST

MIKE: ''But how can you live with the fact that the cause of his physical oddness - his genetic cocktail - is the sole thing that qualifies him as candidate for CEO (and the only candidate on the planet as long as he\'s breathing, at that)?''

How can you live that fact? We can live with that fact because it\'s part of our Constitution. Critics of the monarchy like to play the ''undemocratic card'' but our constitutional monarchy is not undemocratic. The laws dictating how the Canadian head of state is chosen was decided by the Fathers of this country, and has been reaffirmed by democratically elected members of Parliament the few times the issue has been raised over the years. Sure, we never got to personally vote on the matter but by that reasoning the American Constitution is also undemocratic.

AnonymousApril 14, 2011 00:38 EST


More than two possibilities (the status quo Vs American-style republic) exist for how to run our country in the 21st Century and beyond.

We simply need to better customize the existing system and jettison what's inherantly wrong about it.

1) We can agree that an apolitical head of state is, in principal, a good idea. (Charles has already shown his wont to dabble in the affairs of the British state. Apolitical he ain't.)
2) We like the idea of the tenure of a Canadian head of state spanning a many years and several governments.
3) We can agree that it'd make more sense if this person, y'know, like lived here.
4) We agree that this is largely a symbolic appointment anyway.

Why not make a work on creating a short list of inspiring Canadians who have devoted a considerable amount of their life to bettering the public good and have the Canadian people choose from this list?





GerryApril 14, 2011 14:52 EST

I find it funny that the author is attacking OUR oath.

I wonder what he would have written had he attempted to become a U.S. citizen when Bush was head honcho. Would the size of ol' Geogie's ears have mattered? Maybe he would have attacked his squinty eyes.

I, for one, find comfort in the, if nothing else, tradition of the monarchy. In the age of ever expanding technology, why not counter it with a living nostalgia of Kings and Queens with all the glamour of jewels and storybook appeal we hold them in as children.

And hey, if the monarchy were good enough for my parents and grandparents, then they are good enough for me.

SpencerApril 14, 2011 22:24 EST

"1) We can agree that an apolitical head of state is, in principal, a good idea. (Charles has already shown his wont to dabble in the affairs of the British state. Apolitical he ain't.)
2) We like the idea of the tenure of a Canadian head of state spanning a many years and several governments.
3) We can agree that it'd make more sense if this person, y'know, like lived here.
4) We agree that this is largely a symbolic appointment anyway.

Why not make a work on creating a short list of inspiring Canadians who have devoted a considerable amount of their life to bettering the public good and have the Canadian people choose from this list?"

Yes, I agree on all those points but how would your idea be an improvement. The current system we have in place to choose the monarch works. And, in my opinion, it works well. It's hassle-free and the monarch-to-be is trained from birth. Really, it's ideal. Yes, there will be monarchs like Charles who want to get involved in politics but there will also be monarchs like Queen Elizabeth who has served us well for almost 60 years, now. And it would be the same why if we chose our monarch from a "short list". Sometimes we'd make a mistake and choose someone like Charles who is ill-suited to be a non-partisan figure head, and sometimes we'd chose someone like Queen Elizabeth who is perfect for the job. So, if we switched to a system like you suggest we'd have same problems we have today without the benefit of the tradition and colourful history that is part of our current system.

AlanApril 16, 2011 17:11 EST

Re: Mike\'s comment: \"But how can you live with the fact that the cause of his physical oddness - his genetic cocktail - is the sole thing that qualifies him \"

Perhaps someone with more knowledge can correct me, but I believe that Parliament in the UK must assent to the \'heir\' before he becomes the \'heir\'. This requirement is to guard against any obvious defects which would make the first born, or second born, etc. unacceptable as Head of State. Therefore his more than his genes are required.

And I think there has been much debate about what the UK Government would have done with the attributed Nazi leanings of Edward VII if he hadn\'t spared them this concern by abdicating before it became an matter of more concern, thereby suggesting that Parliament can still have a say on the status of a sitting monarch. Using mad George III as an modern day example is like discouraging space travel because the universe is flat and they might fall off the end.

Laurent DesboisApril 18, 2011 13:02 EST

Wow!!! Great!!! This would be a great question for the next Québec referendum!!!

"I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."

How many Quebecers will vote YES to this question??

I am prepared to bet a big brown bill on the result!!!

AlexMay 09, 2011 12:13 EST

It's pretty insensitive to call people who are mentally ill "miscreants". Just saying.

AlbinFebruary 09, 2012 10:05 EST

We ought to have learned something about the consequences of monarchy when our pretty but out-of-her-depth GG was confronted with and forced to actually decide a constitutional matter a few years ago. Harper has now appointed an ideologically sympathetic (i.e. not by any stretch "neutral") lawyer to the job.

I was landed in 1973, and faced with the prospect of swearing that oath and my retro insistence on taking personal oaths seriously, have remained a landed non-citizen to this day.

Add a comment

  
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
TwitterFacebookRSS
On newsstands now
New Issue on Sale
June 2012
Subscribe online for as little as $2.49 an issue. Visit The Walrus Store
to buy prints of our covers
The Walrus Foundation National Event Guide

The Walrus HOOPP Pension Debate
Be It Resolved That Canadians Are Incapable
of Saving for Their Retirement Needs Alone

12 pm, Wednesday, May 30 at
Hart House Debate Room, Toronto

The Walrus Glenbow Debate
Calgary’s Cowboy Culture:
Living Legacy or Just History?

6:30 pm, Thursday, June 7 at
Epcor Centre: Max Bell Theatre, Calgary

The Walrus Laughs
The Walrus SoapBox